Could it be that the Emergent Church has its roots in the Reformation? If the EC ever solidifies into anything historically significant (it won’t), will they count Erasmus as one of their Church Fathers? In 1524, Desiderius Erasmus published Diatribe seu collation de libero arbitrio (Diatribe on Free Will). Luther responded in 1525 with De Servo Arbitrio (On the Enslaved Will), which we know as The Bondage of the Will. I have just begun reading Luther’s work and, so far, his words and those of the translators in their introduction seem strikingly applicable to the EC.

Consider this passage from the translator’s Historical and Theological Introduction:

   Why did Erasmus and Luther approach the discussion of ‘free-will’ in such contrasting attitudes of mind? The answer is not far to seek. Their divergent attitudes sprang from two divergent conceptions of Christianity. Erasmus held that matters of doctrine were all comparatively unimportant, and that the issue as to whether a man’s will was or was not free was more unimportant than most. Luther, on the other hand, held that doctrines were essential to, and constructive of, the Christian religion, and that the doctrine of the bondage of the will in particular was the corner-stone of the Gospel and the very foundation of faith. Here we are confronted with the deepest difference that there was, or could have been, between the two men; and we must say a little more about it.
   Christianity, to Erasmus, was essentially morality, with a minimum of doctrinal statement loosely appended. What Erasmus professed that he desire to see in Christendom was a return to an apostolic ‘simplicity’ of life and doctrine, and this he thought could be brought about simply by eliminating the superstitions and abuses which had crept into the Church’s life over the centuries. The Reformation that Erasmus actually advocated under the name of ‘the philosophy of Christ’ as the true, slimmed, ‘simple’ version of Christianity, turns out on inspection to be no more than a barren moralism. Erasmus recognizes no organic dependence of practice upon faith. That the life which pleases God springs only from living trust in Christ as the Word of God sets Him forth that is something that the great humanist never saw. That is why he could profess to find so little pleasure in theological dogmatizing that he would gladly side with the Sceptics whenever Scripture and the Church allowed him to do so although, as he hastened to explain, he uniformly submitted his judgment to these authorities, whether he understood the reasons for what they ordained or not. Luther takes him severely to task for this remark, and not without justice. Erasmus cannot be acquitted of the charge of doctrinal indifferentism. His attitude was that what one believes about the mysteries of the faith does not much matter; what the Church lays down may safely be accepted, whether right or wrong, for the details of a churchman’s doctrine will not affect his living as a Christian in this world, nor his eventual destiny in the world to come therefore, however sure one might be that the Church was a some point wrong, one is never justified in disrupting Christendom about it (as Luther was doing); peace in the Church was of more value than any doctrine. The churchman would be wise not to bother his head about problems of doctrinal definition, but to concern himself simply with guiding his life by the moral law of Christ. In particular, the question as to whether or not man’s will is free, to Erasmus’ mind, can be ignored with perfect safety; it can have no possible bearing on man’s endeavor to keep the law of Christ, except perhaps to distract and discourage him. Wisdom and humanity alike dissuade us from prying too deeply into such an abstruse subject; and it is a sign of pride and folly when a man lays much stress upon it. The Christian church is better off without rash ventures of that sort. [emphasis added]

At first glance, Erasmus’ stated willingness to submit to Scripture and the Church may seem incompatible with the EC, but it really is not. Like Erasmus, the EC gives the desultory nod to Scripture. At the same time, any dogma (however noncommittal) is the result of a consensus (however loose) of “the community,” which is the EC’s version of the Church. Erasmus’ main resemblance to the EC is, obviously, his disdain for dogma and his willingness to discard doctrine as unimportant and even harmful.

In Luther’s own introduction, he takes Erasmus to task for an offense that screams EC to even the most casual observer:

I forbear at the moment to mention further the fact that, in your usual way, you have taken vast pains throughout to be slippery and evasive. You are more canny than Ulysses in the way you suppose yourself to be steering between Scylla and Charybdis—you would have nothing actually asserted, yet you would seem to assert something! Who, I ask, but one who could catch Proteus himself could bring forth anything to touch people like you?

Luther begins his Review of Erasmus’ Preface by demonstrating “the necessity of assertions in Christianity.”

Away, now, with Sceptics and Academics from the company of us Christians; let us have men who will assert, men twice as inflexible as very Stoics! Take the Apostle Paul—how often does he call for that ‘full assurance’ which is, simply, an assertion of conscience, of the highest degree of certainty and conviction. In Rom. 10 he calls it ‘confession’—‘with the mouth confession is made unto salvation’ (v. 10). Christ says, ‘Whosoever confesseth me before men, him will I confess before my Father’ (Matt.10.32). Peter commands us to give a reason for the hope that is in us (I Pet. 3.15). And what need is there of a multitude of proofs? Nothing is more familiar of characteristic among Christians than assertion, take away assertions, and you take away Christianity. Why, the Holy Spirit is given to Christians from heaven in order that He may glorify Christ and in them confess Him even unto death—and is this not assertion, to die for what you confess and assert? Again, the Spirit asserts to such purpose that He breaks in upon the whole world and convinces it of sin (cf. John 16.8), as if challenging it to battle. Paul tells Timothy to reprove, and to be instant out of season (2 Tim. 4.2); and what a clown I should think a man to be who did not really believe, nor unwaveringly assert, those things concerning which he reproved others! I think I should send him to Anticyra! [Anticyra was a health resort used for treating mental illness.]
   But I am the biggest fool of all for wasting time and words on something that is clearer to see that the sun. What Christian can endure the idea that we should deprecate assertions? That would be denying all religion and piety in one breath—asserting that religion and piety are nothing at all. Why then do you—you!—assert that you find no satisfaction in assertions and that you prefer an undogmatic temper to any other? [italics original, boldface added]

What do you think? Could Luther not have been writing to Brian McLaren and his ilk? I could continue offering examples, but since I find Luther’s words more delightful to read than to type, I will return to reading, and encourage you to do the same.